tv [untitled] April 4, 2013 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT
attachment a for [speaker not understood] candidate. san francisco police officers association issues p-a-c. teachers, nurses and neighbors supporting christina olague [speaker not understood]. san francisco parrottv political action committee. friends and neighbors in support of mike garcia san francisco [speaker not understood] 2012, [speaker not understood] san francisco apartment association. san francisco police officers association independent expenditure committee. >> please select three committees from the box. and as you pull the committees out, read the names.
san francisco rising action fund committee. one california for all leland yee ballot measure committee. [speaker not understood] for school board 2012. >> now we'll move to the next level. san franciscans for competitive bidding supported by san francisco bay, [speaker not understood] quinten cop, [speaker not understood] small businesses san francisco rate payers. reelect natalie burg community college board 2012.
home alone for college board 2012. avalos for district 11 supervisor 2012. matt hainey for school board 2012. teachers firefighters and neighbors supporting fx crowley [speaker not understood] sponsored by san francisco labor council. [speaker not understood], lesbian gay democratic club p-a-c. san francisco labor and member education/political issues committee. golden gate restaurant association p-a-c. s.f. forward sponsored by san francisco chamber of commerce. san francisco apartment association political action committee, progress for all. >> please select one committee.
reelect natalie burg college board 2012. >> now we will read the names for the committees in level 3. committee to save our city college yes on a, support by thousands of is not franciscans who support education. see attachment [speaker not understood]. yosemite restoration campaign yes sponsored by restore hetch hetchy. commission for sustainable housing, committee in support prop c. save hetch hetchy no on [speaker not understood] san francisco foundation [speaker not understood]. yes on b san franciscans for clean safe neighborhood parks with major support from san
francisco parks [speaker not understood] trust for public land. san franciscans for fair taxes and better city services. yes on e, coalition of [speaker not understood] labor unions and tech companies. keep san francisco green. no on prop a, coalition of ecology, labor, business and environmentalists, major funding by [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. rodrigo santos [speaker not understood] 2012. reelect supervisor david chiu 2012. protect our benefits, teachers, nurses, neighbors supporting eric mar for 2012 sponsored by san francisco labor council, san francisco labor council, labor and neighbors independent expenditure political action
committee, building owners and managers association of san francisco political action committee, expenditures a.k.a. boma s.f. p-a-c ie. san francisco for women accountability supervisor opposing christina olague 2012. coalition for a safer california. committee on jobs, government reform fund. san francisco democratic county central committee. mayor ed lee for san francisco committee. coalition for sensible government major funding by san francisco association of realtors. san francisco alliance for jobs and sustainable growth p-a-c. service employees international local union 10 21 issues p-a-c. seiu unitedhealth care workers [speaker not understood] political issue committee. >> please select three
>> thanks very much. the next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on public finance report. mr. sinclair, would you like to introduce this item? >> yes. >> thank you. so, in the 2012 election, 12 candidates qualified to receive public funding. we disbursed approximately 1.2 million in public funds. the candidates spent about $3 million. and third-party persons spent approximately 1.5 million. i'd like to point out that there is a typo that i just noticed on page 3. the last sentence in the first paragraph states that there were 22 eligible candidates. there were actually 12 eligible candidates as stated on page 2.
and all the information is in the report. if you have any questions, i'd be glad to answer them. >> how do you think we did compared to our goals for public financing? >> you know, it's been very difficult to identify whether we've been meeting our goals because each election cycle, the rules change. so, for example, when those public financing program first started in 2002, we did not have individual expenditure ceilings. we just had ceilings where when they were lifted, they were lifted for everybody, including publicly funded candidates. so, once the ceilings were lifted, candidates could spend as much as they wanted to spend. and beginning with the 2008 supervisorial election, we
started administering expenditure ceilings. weren't just lifted indefinitely, but we'd monitor the ceilings and raise them in increments of $10,000 for supervisorial races and 100,000 for mayoral races. and in addition to that, the amount of the expenditure ceiling has also changed over the years. so, for example, in the most recent election, the individual expenditure ceiling started at 250,000, whereas in the past two supervisorial cycle they started at 143 and 140,000. prior to that the ceiling was less than $100,000. and in other changes that happened over the years involved the amount of public funds available. so, for example, in 2002 the maximum amount that somebody could receive was 43,750 for the general election and no more after that. and then there were some
elections where candidates could receive more than $89,000 depending on whether we raised their expenditure ceiling. this year we went back to not giving more than the maximum amount of public funds, which was about 155,000. so, a lot of factor keep changing, including the qualification thresholds. but one thing we have noticed is that as time went on, more people applied and qualified for public funding, seems that they trust the program more. it appears that they feel more comfortable with it. we've also noticed that independent spending rose, but i don't know whether that's as a result of the public financing program or as a result of the courts throwing out the provision against the contribution limit on committees making independent expenditures for candidates.
we've also noticed that whenever there was an incumbent involved in an election, the incumbent always won with the exception of the district 5 supervisorial race in 2012. >> regardless of whether they were publicly financed or not? >> correct. >> any other questions for ms. sheik? ms. studley? >> i appreciate that. there is no double blind test available and it's hard to identify patterns. i think there are some other things that we could all be watching or looking for over time. one that you've spoken to, but i wonder if you have a summary on this, is whether more candidates ran. overall, with all of these variations, one of the issues was would people feel more able to stand for public office. can you speak to that one? >> yes.
initially it seemed that more candidates did run for office, especially in 2004 when we went to rank choice voting. a number of candidates, for example, in 2004 the supervisorial race was open. there was not an incumbent. and i think 22 candidates alone from that district ran for office. over time we've noticed whenever there is an open race, there will be more candidates running for office. and, yes, we have noticed a trend of more candidates running for office. >> and then some other things that we're ali equally able to watch are just qualitative things, including how people talk and think about running for office or whether candidates -- people considering running report that the challenges of fund-raising
are critical in their decision making or whether they think it's appeal to the voters that's driving their decisions. many of these is easy for staff analysis. they're the kind of things we might want to be watching as we or sometimes ask for recommendations on the system. and just as a conduit to other thing the city thinks about [speaker not understood]. other commissioners may have more thoughtful areas they think will tell us whether the system is succeeding in meeting its goals or -- >> questions or comment? ~ other questions or comment? i think that commissioner suddenly raised a good point. i certainly appreciate the
opportunity to analyze a report this detailed. and thank you for putting it together. it gives us all a chance to think about this program in a detailed way on an annual basis. so, thank you for that. public comment? hearing none, is there a motion to approve the draft report on san francisco's limited public financing program? >> so moved. >> second. >> i guess subject to ms. sheik's amendment to that sentence, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, motion passes. the next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on election of the chair and vice-chair for the san francisco ethics commission for the coming year. >> generally we choose the chair first and then the
vice-chair. any member of the commission can nominate either themselves or another commission. nominations do not require a second. >> are there nominations for the position of chair? >> it would be my honor to nominate in hopes that she would be willing to serve, commissioner chan. i think you make a wonderful chair of this commission and it would be terrific if you were willing to do this. ~ >> thank you. and if the commission wishes to place its trust in me, i will certainly make every effort to warrant that trust. thank you. >> i second that nomination. >> any other nominations for chair?
public comment? all in favor of electing commissioner han as chair of the san francisco ethics commission, aye. >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, congratulations, commissioner han. >> my condolances. >> and then hur becomes the most relieved person. [laughter] >> i think the public should understand commissioner hur has been termed out. it isn't that we decided we needed a new commissioner -- new chairman. >> thank you, commissioner renne. >> question. it is a one-year term, is that correct? >> correct. >> you can be reelected a second time. >> i want to make sure i'm not committing the rest of my life to this. [laughter] >> too late. >> it just feels that way.
>> nominations for vice-chair. >> i'd like to nominate commissioner renne for vice-chair. >> any other nominations? all in favor of commissioner renne for -- public comment, sorry. all in favor of commissioner renne for vice-chair. >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, congratulations, commissioner renne. >> thank you. >> commissioner suddenly. >> mr. chair, would this be the moment to thank you for your service as the chair of the commission? or would you prefer we do that some other time? ~ studley >> i'll take that any time.
>> i think that it is apparent to all of us on the commission and staff that you have had a particularly interesting term of office as chair. and some of the most complicated and demanding matters that could possibly come before this commission have a raise en-- it really is only two years, believe it or not, of your term. ~ arisen and i have been -- others can personally speak for themselves -- in awe of the balance, skill, wisdom that you have brought to the complicated proceedings and the way you have helped us chart new kinds of procedures and your respect for the public's participation and involvement while also helping us carry out very
difficult matters. so, i just want to thank you for doing this. it's a pleasure to serve with you and it's been a particular pleasure to serve while you were chair. >> thank you, commissioner studley. many thanks to you as vice-chair. i know that i leaned on you many times and definitely appreciate the advice. you've been here the longest and have the most history. i definitely appreciated your help on that. and to the commission as a whole, i think we all went through this pretty rough 2012 together and i think we worked very well together. the staff, of course, did a tremendous job and, you know, it was challenging, but i think we were all the better for it. so, thanks to all of you. >> i would like to agree with everything commissioner studley has said. but in addition to that, the number of hours and the amount
of work to which you've committed during your term has been formidable, and frankly i am in awe and, you know, a little nervous about stepping into -- well, certainly not your shoes, but following what is a very hard act. you have been very helpful and i think that anyone who has been in this hearing room during the past year has been impressed with the level of knowledge and work that you have done, and the fairness that you have shown. so, thank you. i wish that the rules allowed the full commission to take you out to a [speaker not understood], but unfortunately we're not allowed to do that. [laughter] >> we're going to have a [speaker not understood] happy hour. comprehensive. >> thank you.
>> thank you, commissioner hand, for saying that. the next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on the minutes of the commission's regular meeting, february 25th, 2013. public comment? no david pelpow today. he's still in bed. >> any edit for revisions to the draft minutes? is there a motion to approve the draft minutes of february 25th, 2013? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, the motion passes. the next item on the agenda is discussion of the executive director's report. >> i would just mention to the
commission that we've met all our budget deadlines and submission dates so far and i'm confident that we'll continue to work with the mayor's office and the board to realize our budget request this year. so, i'll be paying great deal of attention to that as the next couple of months go by. a normal, our budget hearings at the board are in two weeks in june. of course, i'll be covering those, but i'm hopeful that i will be able to get if not actuary request, something close to it. >> okay. public comment on the executive director's report? the next item on the agenda is item for future meeting. commissioner liu. >> thank you, chair hur. i would like to make an
announcement at this time. as my fellow commissioners know and the executive director knows, in semi december -- december i became a new mom, a newborn baby boy. so, these past four months have been wonderful and delirious. i recognize there are not enough hours in the day. particularly i'll be going back to work full time this month. so, it is with heavy heart that i announce that this will be my last meeting. i just won't be able to commit the time any more to this commission. i want to say thank you to everyone here, my fellow commissioners. it's been really an honor and a pleasure to serve with you these past few years. and as commissioner hur and commissioner studley alluded
to, it is a difficult and passionate couple years we had and i was proud to be a part of it. and thank you for your leadership, chair hur. i've seen the number of hours you've spent, you know, between your day job and this commission and i echo everything that commissioner studley and commissioner hand have said about your leadership. it's just been amazing. so, thank you. and thank you very much to mr. john sinclair and the staff and the city attorney's office for all of your hard work. i've seen the time and dedication you've spent accomplishing the goestionv of the commission and it's been a pleasure working with everyone. so, thank you. ~ goals >> thank you, commissioner liu. you will be sorely missed. your preparedness for every meeting, your insightful comments, your fair mindedness. i know i certainly appreciate it a great deal.
i'm sure the public and all of us did. and we very much thank you for your service, wish you the best with your new challenge and joy. and we will miss you very much. >> thank you, chair hur. thank you. >> i just want to add i think you picked on exactly the right characteristics. commissioner liu's fair mindedness and expertise at the same time have been tremendously valuable. and i, too, have appreciated working with you. your particular skills this year as a litigator and somebody experienced in handling the kind of complex materials that we had and your insight into how to maneuver that situation in a highly professional way was really a pleasure working with you.
thank you. >> thank you, commissioner studley. thank you. >> you will be sorely missed. it has been a pleasure knowing you. i echo all the other sentiments. on a personal needth it's been a pleasure getting to know you. >> thank you, commissioner hand. chair hand. [laughter] >> i also echo all those comments and was very sorry when you advised me you were going to step off because i have always appreciated the comments and questions that you've asked, particularly of some of the public and some of the difficult proceeding that we had. and hopefully the board of supervisors will find somebody hopefully with your wisdom and your judgment. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner renne. thank you. >> i would also like to say what -- just a pleasure it is to have a commissioner who is so dedicated and prepared,
insightful and present. and it just, you know, when the commissioners come and they have the work that the staff did and they've read it and they have contributions to make and insights into what we do, it really validates the work that we do to have the commission -- commission members like you and really i'll leave it at that, take the time to evaluate what we present to you and to [speaker not understood] it and to help us do the jest job we can. it means a lot, and you will be missed, not only by the commission, but by the staff. >> thank you, mr. sinclair. >> any other item for future meetings? when are we planning to talk about harvey rose report? >> the april meeting, april 22nd. >> public comment? hearing none, last item on the